THE APPEALS CHAMBER of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("International Tribunal"),

BEING SEIZED OF the Appellant Tihomir Blaskic’s first, second, and third
motions to admit additional evidence on appeal pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules
of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("Rules")1,
the first motion having been filed on 19 January 2001 ("First Rule 115 Motion"),
the second motion having been filed under seal on 18 October 2001 ("Second Rule
115 Motion"), and the third motion having been filed under seal on 10 June 2002
("Third Rule 115 Motion");

CONSIDERING that Rule 115 of the Rules provides that "(A) [a] party may apply by motion to present before the Appeals Chamber additional evidence which was not available to it at the trial…. (B) The Appeals Chamber shall authorise the presentation of such evidence if it considers that the interests of justice so require";

CONSIDERING that, pursuant to the case law of the International Tribunal,
evidence is admissible under Rule 115 if it was unavailable at trial, and if
it is relevant, credible, and such that it could show that the conviction was
unsafe;2

CONSIDERING further that the Appeals Chamber maintains "an inherent
power to admit such evidence even if it was available at trial, in cases in
which its exclusion would lead to a miscarriage of justice";3

CONSIDERING that Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 96, 101, 102, 103, 132, 146, 147, 149, 183, 187, 242, 243, 257, 258, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, and 267 from the First Rule 115 Motion, and Exhibits 1, 14, 16, 25, 27, and 35 from the Second Rule 115 Motion, clearly satisfy the criteria of Rule 115, in that these items of evidence were unavailable at trial, and are relevant, credible, and such that they could show that the conviction was unsafe;

CONSIDERING further that Exhibits 36, 37, and 39 from the Second Rule 115 Motion and Statements Two and Three from the Third Rule 115 Motion are admissible pursuant to the miscarriage of justice exception to the unavailability requirement imposed by Rule 115;

CONSIDERING that, with respect to the other items of additional evidence sought to be admitted by the Appellant in the motions, the Appeals Chamber reserves its position at this time;

CONSIDERING that the Appeals Chamber would not be prepared to enter an acquittal at this stage on the basis of the clearly admissible evidence, without an entire rehearing of the case;

CONSIDERING that the Prosecution has indicated its intention to submit evidence in rebuttal;

CONSIDERING that, given the sheer volume of clearly admissible evidence, the possible submission of rebuttal evidence and recalling of witnesses who testified at trial, as well as the potential of the additional evidence to bring about a re-determination of the facts of the case, it would be more appropriate for any re-determination of the facts in the particular circumstances of this case to be made by a Trial Chamber;

CONSIDERING that, in the event that a new trial is ordered, all of the additional evidence tendered before the Appeals Chamber may be tendered at that new trial, irrespective of the restrictions imposed by Rule 115;

HEREBY ORDERS the parties to present oral argument limited to the issue of whether the above-mentioned clearly admissible evidence justifies a new trial by a Trial Chamber, on some or all of the counts;

DIRECTS the parties to refrain from discussing any issue related to the admissibility of the additional evidence submitted thus far in relation to which the Appeals Chamber has reserved its position at this time;

FURTHER DIRECTS the parties to file a book of authorities on which they intend to rely for the discussion at the hearing, no later than Monday, 18 November 2002;

AND SETS Thursday, 21 November 2002, as the hearing date, the precise amount of time to be allotted the parties to be specified in a second Scheduling Order.

Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.

_________________________
Fausto Pocar
Presiding Judge

Done this 31st day of October 2002,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1 - That is, Rule 115 as it appeared prior to
its latest amendment on 29 July 2002. See also Rule 6(D), which states
that an amendment "shall not operate to prejudice the rights of the accused
or of a convicted or acquitted person in any pending case."2 - Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al, Case No. IT-95-16-A,
Appeal Judgement, 23 Oct. 2001, para. 68.3 - Prosecutor v. Jelisic, Case No. IT-95-10-A, "Decision
on Request to Admit Additional Evidence," 15 Nov. 2000, p. 3.